On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 15:17 -0700, Guy Fraser wrote: > As far as I can tell the only bits they can fight about is the > intellectual property they used for the specific parts that are > required to make Samba, Mono and OpenOffice compatible with the MS > counterparts. Even though the SW may have been completely written from > scratch to emulate the required functions, some reverse engineering > was likely required to determine how to create the functions. Any > reverse engineering is against the MS EULA, so they could argue that > some impropriety had occurred that enabled those functions to be > created and therefore those functions may be in violation of some > statute under the laws of some jurisdictions. I would have thought that easy enough to circumvent. e.g. To reverse engineer a Word doc, I don't need to buy Microsoft Word, I can use the documents that someone else has created. I've never had to agree to their EULA, under those circumstances. Likewise, I can reverse engineer against someone else's file server. I don't recall reading any conditions in a EULA that says I can't allow someone else to use *my* data, or vice versa. -- (Currently testing FC5, but still running FC4, if that's important.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
